what's difference between Code injection and process injection
Code injection is the introduction of executable information into the regular processing of a program, typical example is SQL injection. Process injection is when the introduction of the extraneous executable is done at the process level, in memory where the process runs. The latter can also be done through the use of dll hooks.
Related
I would like to have a DML device with interfaces and register banks as the TOP-level of my device but offload processing to Python. Is there a lightweight method of calling into Python from DML?
This post How can I unit test a specific DML method? addresses calling from Python into DML, but I am interested in the reverse.
I think I can create a bunch of custom interfaces to do this, but I'm interested to know if there's a better way.
Implementing parts of a device in Python can make sense, in particular for code that seldom is invoked (user interaction comes to mind), and when faced with tasks like string manipulation where the shortcomings of a C-like language is particularly painful, or when code sharing with CLI commands is desired.
You can use the SIM_call_python_function API to call out to Python from DML. The function uses the equivalent of eval on the passed string, so you can find a module-local function by __import__:
local attr_value_t a = SIM_make_attr_list(0);
local attr_value_t result = SIM_call_python_function(
"__import__('simics').SIM_version", &a);
log info: "%s", SIM_attr_string(result);
SIM_attr_free(&a);
SIM_attr_free(&result);
This API is admittedly not very pretty. Parts of the standard lib for DML 1.2 is in fact written in Python and uses the internal function VT_call_python_module_function for this task instead. That API is nicer, but we cannot recommend use of VT_ functions outside the core Simics team.
This question is really more about the Simics simulator framework than about DML. Given how Simics works, Python code lives in a separate context. There is no obvious light-weight way. Rather, you need to put the Python code in a separate Python class and a separate runtime object and use a Simics simulator interface to orchestrate the calling.
The Python code would in general not be able to access the state of the object anyway, so it would have to be a strict "compute this and return all computed values". Which is not very convenient for device behavior that is really all about mutating the state of the object.
Even with a bunch of interfaces, there is still the matter of state handling. I guess you need an interface for that as well.
What are the steps required for evaluating an external DSL in scala, and what libraries are available for these?
After digging around i am able to create an AST out of case classes using parser combinators. What are the next steps in the process? I looked at kiama (https://code.google.com/p/kiama/) but it seems unclear from documentation ( may be due to my limited langauage processing knowledge ) how to maintain symbol tables, how to bind actions to dsl statements etc.
I agree that it would be good to have more tutorial-style documentation for common language processing tasks in Kiama. We are working on it, but I have nothing concrete to report at the moment.
In the meantime, all I can offer is the examples in the Kiama distribution. In particular, the minijava example is a reasonably accessible compiler for a non-trivial subset of Java. It does name and type analysis (see SemanticAnalysis.scala) and generates JVM bytecode. The semantic analysis uses a simple model of passing around an environment from declarations to uses of names. Feel free to contact us here or on the Kiama mailing list if you have specific questions about how the example works.
The Oberon-0 example is also a complete compiler from an imperative language to C, including semantic analysis.
I've used lettuce for python in the past. It is a simple BDD framework where specs are written in an external plain text file. Implementation uses regex to identify each step, proving reusable code for each sentence in the specification.
Using scala, either with specs2 or scalatest I'm being forced to write the the specification alongside the implementation, making it impossible to reuse the implementation in another test (sure, we could implement it in a function somewhere) and making it impossible to separate the test implementation from the specification itself (something that I used to do, providing acceptance tests to clients for validation).
Concluding, I raise my question: Considering the importance of validating tests by clients, is there a way in BDD frameworks for scala to load the tests from an external file, raising an exception if a sentence in the test is not implemented yet and executing the test normally if all sentences have been implemented?
I've just discovered a cucumber plugin for sbt. Tests would be implemented under test/scala and specifications would be kept in test/resources as plain txt files. I'm just not sure on how reliable the library is and if it will have support in the future.
Edit:
The above is a wrapper for the following plugin wich solves perfectly the problem and supports Scala.
https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-jvm
This is all about trade-offs. The cucumber-style of specifications is great because it is pure text, that easily editable and readable by non-coders.
However they are also pretty rigid as specifications because they impose a strict format based on features and Given-When-Then. In specs2 for example we can write any text we want and annotate only the lines which are meant to be actions on the system or verification. The drawback is that the text becomes annotated and that pending must be explicitly specified to indicate what hasn't been implemented yet. Also the annotation is just a reference to some code, living somewhere, and you can of course use the usual programming techniques to get reusability.
BTW, the link above is an interesting example of trade-off: in this file, the first spec is "uglier" but there are more compile-time checks that the When step uses the information from a Given step or that we don't have a sequence of Then -> When steps. The second specification is nicer but also more error-prone.
Then there is the issue of maintaining the regular expressions. If there is a strict separation between the people writing the features and the people implementing them, then it's very easy to break the implementation even if nothing substantial changes.
Finally, there is the question of version control. Who owns the document? How can we be sure that the code is in sync with the spec? Who refactors the specification when required?
There is no, by far, perfect solution. My own conclusion is that BDD artifacts should be in the hand of developers and verified by the other stakeholders, reading the code directly if it's readable or reading an html/pdf output. And if the BDD artifacts are owned by developers they might as well use their own tools to make their life easier with verification (using a compiler when possible) and maintenance (using automated refactorings).
You said yourself that it is easy to make the implementation reusable by the normal methods Scala provides for this kind of stuf (methods, functions, traits, classes, types ...), so there isn't really a problem there.
If you want to give a version without code to your customer, you can still give them the code files, and if they can't ignore a little syntax, you probably could write a custom reporter writing all the text out to a file, maybe even formatted with as html or something.
Another option would be to use JBehave or any other JVM based framework, they should work with Scala without a problem.
Eric's main design criteria was sustainability of executable specification development (through refactoring) and not initial convenience due to "beauty" of simple text.
see http://etorreborre.github.io/specs2/
The features of specs2 are:
Concurrent execution of examples by default
ScalaCheck properties
Mocks with Mockito
Data tables
AutoExamples, where the source code is extracted to describe the example
A rich library of matchers
Easy to create and compose
Usable with must and should
Returning "functional" results or throwing exceptions
Reusable outside of specs2 (in JUnit tests for example)
Forms for writing Fitnesse-like specifications (with Markdown markup)
Html reporting to create documentation for acceptance tests, to create a User Guide
Snippets for documenting APIs with always up-to-date code
Integration with sbt and JUnit tools (maven, IDEs,...)
Specs2 is quite impressive in both design and implementation.
If you look closely you will see the DSL can be extended while you keep the typesafe-ty and strong command of domain code under development.
He who leaves aside the "is more ugly" argument and tries this seriously will find power.
Checkout the structured forms and snippets
I've a DSL written using Xtext. What I want is to execute that DSL to perform something good out of it.
I wrote myDslGenerator class implementing the interface IGenerator in xtend to generate java code and it's working fine.
I've two questions;
What is the difference between Interpreter and Code Generator?
Aren't both for executing DSL?
How to write an interpreter? Any step by step tutorial link? I found many tutorial to generate code using xtend but couldn't find any for writing an interpreter.
Thank you,
Salman
Basically, interpreters and code generators work really differently. Code generators are like a compiler: they create executable code of your DSL in another language; on the other hand, interpreters are used to traverse your DSL and execute them in your own environment. This means, the generated code does not have to (but of course it can) depend on your DSL, can be faster/more optimized; while interpreters need to understand the constructs of your language, but can be executed in your development IDE, not required to run an additional application.
AFAIK Xtext does not support writing interpreters, its somewhat out of their scope (not entirely - for Xbase expressions there is an XbaseInterpreter instance, that can be reused - provided you set its classpath correctly), as they are extremely language-specific.
I also don't know any step-by-step tutorial about interpreting Xtext DSLs (not even for the XbaseInterpreter), but it basically boils down to a traversal of the AST, and as a node is traversed, the corresponding statement is executed dynamically. For this traversal to work, as expected, the interpreter has to maintain a (possibly hierarchic) context of variables and other references.
I'm still at the beginning in learning scala in addition to java and i didn't get it how is one supposed to do DI there? can or should i use an existing DI library, should it be done manually or is there another way?
Standard Java DI frameworks will usually work with Scala, but you can also use language constructs to achieve the same effect without external dependencies.
A new dependency injection library specifically for Scala is Dick Wall's SubCut.
Whereas the Jonas Bonér article referenced in Dan Story's answer emphasizes compile-time bound instances and static injection (via mix-ins), SubCut is based on runtime initialization of immutable modules, and dynamic injection by querying the bound modules by type, string names, or scala.Symbol names.
You can read more about the comparison with the Cake pattern in the GettingStarted document.
Dependency Injection itself can be done without any tool, framework or container support. You only need to remove news from your code and move them to constructors. The one tedious part that remains is wiring the objects at "the end of the world", where containers help a lot.
Though with Scala's 2.10 macros, you can generate the wiring code at compile-time and have auto-wiring and type-safety.
See the Dependency Injection in Scala Guide
A recent project illustrates a DI based purely on constructor injection: zalando/grafter
What's wrong with constructor injection again?
There are many libraries or approaches for doing dependency injection in Scala. Grafter goes back to the fundamentals of dependency injection by just using constructor injection: no reflection, no xml, no annotations, no inheritance or self-types.
Then, Grafter add to constructor injection just the necessary support to:
instantiate a component-based application from a configuration
fine-tune the wiring (create singletons)
test the application by replacing components
start / stop the application
Grafter is targeting every possible application because it focuses on associating just 3 ideas:
case classes and interfaces for components
Reader instances and shapeless for the configuration
tree rewriting and kiama for everything else!
I haven't done so myself, but most DI frameworks work at the bytecode level (AFAIK), so it should be possible to use them with any JVM language.
Previous posts covered the techniques. I wanted to add a link to Martin Odersky's May 2014 talk on the Scala language objectives. He identifies languages that "require" a DI container to inject dependencies as poorly implemented. I agree with this personally, but it is only an opinion. It does seem to indicate that including a DI dependency in your Scala project is non-idiomatic, but again this is opinion. Practically speaking, even with a language designed to inject dependencies natively, there is a certain amount of consistency gained by using a container. It is worth considering both points of view for your purposes.
https://youtu.be/ecekSCX3B4Q?t=1154
I would suggest you to try distage (disclaimer: I'm the author).
It allows you to do much more than a typical DI does and has many unique traits:
distage supports multiple configurations (e.g. you may run your app
with different sets of component implementations),
distage allows you to correctly share dependencies across your tests
and easily run same tests for different implementations of your
components,
distage supports roles so you may run multiple services within the same process sharing dependencies between them,
distage does not depend on scala-reflect
(but supports all the necessary features of Scala typesystem, like
higher-kinded types).
You may also watch our talk at Functional Scala 2019 where we've discussed and demonstrated some important capabiliteis of distage.
I have shown how I created a very simple functional DI container in scala using 2.10 here.
In addition to the answer of Dan Story, I blogged about a DI variant that also uses language constructs only but is not mentioned in Jonas's post: Value Injection on Traits (linking to web.archive.org now).
This pattern is working very well for me.